According to the pilot under examination, he was to accomplish a short-field landing to the Runway 17 numbers at the airport in Puyallup, Washington, during his single-engine airplane flight instructor practical examination.
During the transition from final to the flare, the bottom of the Piper PA-28R’s fuselage hit an aircraft traffic monitoring camera system.
The camera system was about 125′ north of the Runway 17 threshold and was about 8″ high.
After hitting the camera, the pilot added power and landed the airplane on the Runway 17 numbers. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing spar.
There were no NOTAMs regarding the use of the aircraft traffic monitoring camera system issued at the time of the accident.
However, the next day, the airport manager issued a NOTAM regarding the deployment of the camera system.
Probable cause: The airport’s failure to issue a NOTAM regarding the deployment of the traffic monitoring camera system before the accident, which resulted in the airplane hitting the camera system during a short-field approach and landing.
NTSB Identification: GAA17CA072
This November 2016 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Maybe he hit it with one of his main gears throwing it up into a wing.
Not the wing, the fuselage. I have been wondering what good a camera mounted 8″ off the ground would do for taking pictures of the runway. I’d believe 8′ and wonder if the NTSB report is a misprint and put the ” sign by mistake.
I did a check and there is no longer an active NOTAM for any obstructions. Additionally there are no mentions of an obstacle for this runway. Also a web search did not yield any additional data beyond what is in this article. So unless there is someone who has direct familiarity with this airport and this incident out questions will not be answered.
It would seem logical that this camera was not close to ground level given that the report states it hit the underside of the aircraft. Maybe the person who drafted the report ment 8 feet rather than 8 inches but I am not sure how to check on that. At 8 feet it is plausible that you could hit it with the underside of the airplane while still 125 feet from the threshold. That would be if you were doing a short field landing approach and you were just holding it off to drop it on at the threshold. Maybe that was not the best technique but still it is plausible.
So it was higher than 8 inches and the pilot was dragging it in low to make a short field landing is about all we can take from this.
If it’s there, an airplane will hit it.
This was a “Short field non-constrained landing”, so one may want/need to fly a “low” approach “hanging off the prop” as it were. This was not a short field 50′ obstacle type approach (short field constrained approach).
Never the less, it is upon the pilot to maintain a lookout of the area to be overflown. One should not become fixated on the runway and forget to look for a person or large animal, sensor array, etc.
It would seem that this pilot had practiced this approach at this runway and between practice and the check-ride approach, this camera was installed in the runway safety area….
This has nothing to do with the NOTAM, and everything to do with basic Airmanship. Fly the airplane. Thousands of airports around the country followed by off airport landings have no published NOTAMs and have safe daily operations.
The scariest thing is that this was a flight instructor checkride.
Hang on a second here…. He was less than 8″ off the ground when 125′ before the threshold?!?
How does someone, presumably with gear extended, hit something that is 8 inches high?
And why was he so low 126 feet before the threshold?
I suspect there is an error here somewhere. Most likely due to poor proofreading.
Probably not. Some pilots and instructors believe the way to perform a short-field landing is to aim before the runway in order to land near the beginning of the runway. This technique can result in a very risky float before the runway surface barely above the ground.
Okay, but how does something only eight inches tall rip the bottom of the wing? No wing sits that low.
You’re right. But maybe it was placed on a spot that was a little higher than the surrounding terrain for a better viewing angle.
He had to have the gear up right? 8 inches high, 125 feet from the runway! right? What was he flying?
Even if it was a retract, the gear wouldn’t still be up 126 feet from the threshold.